Nick Lappos: back to Sikorsky?
I see the S-92 as one of NL’s baby’s and a great advocate, so off the mark in my opinion.
If I remember correctly, NL departed SAC shortly after the VXX selection back in early 2005, so go figure. But, as the next winner will be the VH-92 (Incumbent teams up with LM - VXX winning Systems Integrator) and with added opportunities of getting involved with next generation platforms like the S-97 (and others), I would have thought now would be an exciting time to return.
If I remember correctly, NL departed SAC shortly after the VXX selection back in early 2005, so go figure. But, as the next winner will be the VH-92 (Incumbent teams up with LM - VXX winning Systems Integrator) and with added opportunities of getting involved with next generation platforms like the S-97 (and others), I would have thought now would be an exciting time to return.
Certainly Nick was gushing about the safety aspects of the S-92 in his sales pitch but some of those claims have now proved to be erroneous:
The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).
The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.
I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.
The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).
The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.
I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
No. You're on the wrong track completely.
Nick was tempted by the new challenge offered by Gulfstream - heading their Government Programmes division - but was very reluctant to leave Sikorsky. Gulfstream was determined to recruit him and eventually offered a package that no-one in their right mind would have turned down.
(He was subsequently head-hunted by Bell who were also extremely keen to recruit him, and eventually succeeded.)
If that's the case, then there's no better man to do it.
FL
So did Nick leave Sikorsky after disagreements regarding the S92?
Nick was tempted by the new challenge offered by Gulfstream - heading their Government Programmes division - but was very reluctant to leave Sikorsky. Gulfstream was determined to recruit him and eventually offered a package that no-one in their right mind would have turned down.
(He was subsequently head-hunted by Bell who were also extremely keen to recruit him, and eventually succeeded.)
has returned just when they really need to rebuild their reputation.
FL
Originally Posted by Crab
Certainly Nick was gushing about the safety aspects of the S-92 in his sales pitch but some of those claims have now proved to be erroneous:
The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).
The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.
I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.
The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).
The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.
I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe? Yes, the gearbox failed in the worst way. But that's fixed now, isn't it? Would you rather fly a sixty year old proven airframe over large distances of unwelcome ocean, or the S92? I'd pick the latter (provided the transmission is fixed).
With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.
I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.
Matthew.
With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.
I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.
Matthew.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was Sikorksy, I'd certainly want Nick testifying on behalf of the company rather than as a witness for the plaintiffs in the pending suits. Recruiting him back into the fold was a pretty sound business decision, I'd say.
However, I doubt any Sikorsky executive, past or present, would willingly volunteer to be examined by them in open court.
Just because the S92 crash is history, isn't a reason to forget the lessons it taught everyone.
I go along with Crab on this, he raises an interesting point.
From the TSBC findings:
and
and
Sikorsky are implicated and allegedly contributed to the crash. The pending law suits will decide by how much. In the meantime perhaps I can get the question in early
:
Nick, how much of the above were you aware of during your 30+ yrs at Sikorsky?
hedge 36: Interesting perspective
I go along with Crab on this, he raises an interesting point.
From the TSBC findings:
The S-92A rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) MGB oil system failure procedure was ambiguous and lacked clearly defined symptoms of either a massive loss of MGB oil or a single MGB oil pump failure. This ambiguity contributed to the flight crew's misdiagnosis that a faulty oil pump or sensor was the source of the problem.
The decision not to automate an emergency system activation, such as the MGB oil bypass system in the S-92A, increases the risk that critical actions will be omitted or delayed unnecessarily.
If manufacturers do not clearly identify critical aircraft performance capabilities in flight manuals, such as run dry time, there is increased risk that pilots will make decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information during abnormal and emergency situations.
Sikorsky are implicated and allegedly contributed to the crash. The pending law suits will decide by how much. In the meantime perhaps I can get the question in early
:Nick, how much of the above were you aware of during your 30+ yrs at Sikorsky?
hedge 36: Interesting perspective
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 13th Jun 2011 at 08:40.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi chaps, just drifted back to the thread, got rather board with the god like approach, however as it is now featuring the S92 maybe a trail through some of the comments relating to the helicopter in other threads and the duff information posted if still available and not deleted, may be of help in the ongoing litigation.
Nice to see mods are selectively deleting posts in these threads.
If you dont want any S92 discussion in here, be consistent and delete all of the other posts referencing the 92 and not Nick specifically.
Posts have not been deleted, they have been moved to the S-92 thread where they are more relevant. Some posts were copied across to maintain continuity of discussion, otherwise this thread should be about Nick/Sikorsky, not a duplication of the S-92 thread
SP
If you dont want any S92 discussion in here, be consistent and delete all of the other posts referencing the 92 and not Nick specifically.
Posts have not been deleted, they have been moved to the S-92 thread where they are more relevant. Some posts were copied across to maintain continuity of discussion, otherwise this thread should be about Nick/Sikorsky, not a duplication of the S-92 thread
SP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mods, seems I have been out of order, *E mail notification of reply seemingly deleted.*
Well never mind least my mail is still available and though I guess a tad controversial we shall see.
As it's relevant to thread look forward to any comments.
Well never mind least my mail is still available and though I guess a tad controversial we shall see.
As it's relevant to thread look forward to any comments.
